Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
For construction of approaches to flyovers and Road Over Bridges, Reinforced earth technology has almost
completely replaced conventional retaining structures. Geogrid Reinforced earth wall retaining structures
have gained wide acceptance in India as a technically proven and cost effective alternative to conventional
concrete retaining wall. The ongoing and planned initiatives of central and state governments for improving
the road infrastructures in the country are likely to give a major boost for the demand for Geogrid reinforced
wall systems. Geosynthetics have become well established construction material for geotechnical and
environmental applications in most parts of the world. Results from recent research and from monitoring of
instrumented structures throughout the years have led to new design methods for different applications of
geosynthetics. The geosynthetic reinforced soil has emerged in the last few decades as a technically
attractive and cost effective solution to many geotechnical problems. This concept was used for the
construction of vertical wall in the Outer Ring Road of Hyderabad in the stretches from Patancheru
Mallampet from Km 23.700 to 35.000 with segmental blocks as the facing elements.
So a research work was carried out to study about the material required for the construction of reinforced
earth wall and its specifications and also the construction methodology adopted. A cost and time
comparison study was also carried out between reinforced earthen wall and conventional retaining wall,
and it was found that the cost for the construction of reinforced earthen walls was approximately 20% less
than the cost of conventional retaining wall. From the time comparison study it was observed that the time
required for construction of reinforced earthen walls was more when compared to the construction of
retaining walls. But if the wall height is more the reinforced earth walls can be preferred in the context of
their stability, and also in its capacity to reduce the future settlement of pavement by controlling the erosion
of soil fill with the help of geotextile placed between the soil fill and drainage aggregate.
Introduction
A retaining structure is used for maintaining the ground surface at different elevations on either side of it.
Geo grid reinforced earth technology has almost completely replaced conventional retaining structures with
the help of geosynthetics. Over the years, these products have helped designers and contractors to solve
several types of engineering problems where the use of conventional construction materials would be
restricted or considerably more expensive. There are a significant number of geosynthetic types and
geosynthetic applications in geotechnical and environmental engineering. Common types of geosynthetics
used for soil reinforcement include geotextiles (particularly woven geotextiles), geogrids and geocells. The
combination of improved materials and design methods has made possible engineers to face challenges
and to build structures under conditions that would be unthinkable in the past
Literature review
R.D. Nalawade and D.R. Nalawade (2008) in their paper "Stability and Cost Aspects of Geogrid Reinforced
Earth Wall of Flyover" made an attempt to compute the cost and stability aspects of the reinforced earthen
walls In this paper methodological design of retaining wall structure using geogrid for flyover near
Agriculture College, Pune is tackled through external, internal, wedge and seismic stability. Finally design
by metallic strips and reinforced cement concrete cantilever retaining wall was carried out and the cost
comparison was made which shows Geogrid RE wall reduces the cost and time required for construction.
7.1. Concrete segmental block: Figure 1
Seiichi Onodera et al (2001) in their paper "Long-term durability of geogrids laid in Reinforced soil wall"
made a study on two types of 5m high geogrid reinforced soil walls (gradient V:H=1:0.1) with two kinds of
wall facing (wrapping type and L-shaped concrete block type). Trial soil walls were constructed in 1990 with
an 8m high vertical reinforced soil wall with concrete block wall facing and in 1995 a 4.5m high reinforced
soil wall (gradient V:H=1:0.5) with a steel mesh frame as its wall facing trial soil walls were constructed.
From the beginning of the construction stage, wall displacement or strain of the geogrid, the earth pressure,
etc. were measured for a long period of time. In 2002, when the first walls were about 12 years old and the
second walls were about 7 years old, parts of the four kinds of geogrids that were used as the reinforcement
of the embankment and as the wall facing were sampled and underwent tensile tests to study their long-
term durability. They were also immersed in various chemicals for a long period time then underwent tensile
test to study their chemical degradation. The results confirmed that the geogrids buried in the soil for 12
years or for 7 years retained their original tensile strength.
Xiao-jing Feng et al (2008) in their paper "The Influence of Facing Stiffness on the Performance of Geogrid
Reinforced Retaining Walls" stated that as pointed out by various researchers, consideration of the
influence of the facing type on reinforcement loads was lacking in current limit equilibrium-based design
methods for the internal stability design of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls. Also the displacement of walls
and the strain of reinforcement are also related to the facing type. This paper reported the results of the
three instrumented model walls. The walls were nominally identical except one wall was constructed with a
rigid concrete block face, the other with a hinge joint wood face, and another with a flexible wrapped face.
The displacement of wall face added with the increase of the stiffness of wall face under the same
surcharge. The strain of the reinforcement was influenced by the facing stiffness, while the relation between
them also effected by the loading type, backfill type etc. Under the strip load , the reinforcement strain in
stiff-face wall was higher. The ductile of the wall failure was reduced with the increasing of facing stiffness.
Peter Janopaul et al (1991) in their paper "Retaining Wall Construction And Block Therefor" stated that in
general, a block and retaining wall formed by a number of such blocks are interconnected between courses
by a plurality of Z shaped anchored elements having an upper and lower body part of substantially
rectangular cross-section. The offset of one course of blocks relative to the course beneath will be a
predetermined by a fixed amount determined by the offset of the body parts of the interlocking Z-shaped
anchor elements. A tie-back arrangement includes means for attaching a sheet of geosynthetic material to
the embedded end of a block so as to leave the open cells within and those formed between the blocks
unobstructed from the above and available for filling with pea gravel or other drainage fill material.
7.2. Geo grid: Figure 2 7.3. Geo textile: Figure 3
Ennio M. Palmeira et al (2008) in their paper "Advances in Geo synthetics Materials and Applications for
Soil Reinforcement and Environmental Protection Works" explained about the usage of geo synthetics
materials in construction elements. Geosynthetics have been increasingly used in geotechnical and
environmental engineering for the last 4 decades. Over the years, these products have helped designers
and contractors to solve several types of engineering problems where the use of conventional construction
materials would be restricted or considerably more expensive. There are a significant number of
geosynthetic types and geosynthetic applications in geotechnical and environmental engineering. Common
types of geosynthetics used for soil reinforcement include geotextiles (particularly woven geotextiles),
geogrids and geocells.
Dwight A Beranak, P.E. (2002) in their paper "Use of Geogrids in Pavement Construction" focused how
Engineers are continually faced with maintaining and developing pavement infrastructure with limited
financial resources. Traditional pavement design and construction practices require high-quality materials
for fulfillment of construction standards. In many areas of the world, quality materials are unavailable or in
short supply. Due to these constraints, engineers are often forced to seek alternative designs using
substandard materials, commercial construction aids, and innovative design practices. One category of
commercial construction aids was geosynthetics. Geosynthetics include a large variety of products
composed of polymers and are designed to enhance geotechnical and transportation projects.
Geosynthetics perform at least one of five functions: separation, reinforcement, filtration, drainage, and
containment. One category of geosynthetics in particular, geogrids, has gained increasing acceptance in
road construction. Extensive research programs have been conducted by the U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center (ERDC) and non-military agencies to develop design and construction
guidance for the inclusion of geogrids in pavement systems.
Han Yong Jeon et al (2002) in their paper "Assessment of long-term performances of polyester geogrids
by accelerated creep test "viewed that Geogrids are widely used as the reinforcement materials in
geotechnical and civil engineering fields. In this study, accelerated-creep tests at elevated temperatures to
predict longer-term creep behavior of polyester fabric geogrids were examined using the timetemperature
superposition principle. Creep tests were generally performed to calculate the partial factor of safety during
the service time of polyester geogrids and two types of geogrids, having different design strengths ranging
from 8 to 15 t/m, were used in this study. The creep tests were carried out at various temperatures and
loading levels of 40, 50, and 60% of short-term design strengths. Also, the creep tests were made at
temperatures between 20 and 50C to take into consideration the real environmental conditions of geogrids.
The results indicated the applicability of the conventional procedures in prediction of longer time creep
strain and material dependency of creep strains.
P. Bataille et al (2004) et al in their paper "Mechanical properties and permeability of polypropylene and
poly (ethylene terephthalate) mixtures" studied that the synthetic membranes currently used for soil
stabilization and road construction that are mainly made of polypropylene and of polyesters. This paper
reported on the mechanical properties and the permeability of mixtures of polypropylene (PP) and
polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The elastic modulus of the mixture was at a minimum for a 50/50 mixture.
For the other compositions, the moduli gave a positive deviation as compared with the additivity equation
results. This was probably due to the fact that pure PET has a fragile behavior at the temperature at which
the mechanical tests were run. This 50/50 composition corresponds to the domain where a phase inversion
occurs. The yield stress increased, however, indicating that we had a better adhesion and that the
copolymer seems to have a certain emulsifier effect, increasing the quality of the dispersion.
Roll width m 5 5 5 5 5 5
Roll length m 50 50 50 50 50 50
J. Engrg. Mech. (2004) in his paper "Analyzing Dynamic Behavior of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil
Retaining Walls" stated that an advanced generalized plasticity soil model and bounding surface
geosynthetic model, in conjunction with a dynamic finite element procedure, were used to analyze the
behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. The construction behavior of a full-scale wall was
first analyzed followed by a series of five shaking table tests conducted in a centrifuge. The parameters for
the sandy backfill soils were calibrated through the results of monotonic and cyclic triaxial tests. The wall
facing deformations, strains in the geogrid reinforcement layers, lateral earth pressures acting at the facing
blocks, and vertical stresses at the foundation were presented. In the centrifugal shaking table tests, the
response of the walls subject to 20 cycles of sinusoidal wave having a frequency of 2 Hz and of acceleration
amplitude of 0.2g were compared with the results of analysis. The acceleration in the backfill, strain in the
geogrid layers, and facing deformation were computed and compared to the test results. The results of
analysis for both static and dynamic tests compared reasonably well with the experimental results.
7.5. Compaction of soil, Blocks Erection and Drainage material filling: Figure 5
Construction of Eight lane Access Controlled Expressway as Outer Ring Road to Hyderabad City in the
State of Andhra Pradesh, India in the stretches from Patancheru Shamirpet from km.23.700 to km.61.700
(Northern Arc) Package-I from Km 23.700 to Km 35.000 Patancheru-Mallampet.
Study area details
Site Information
The area in which the works are located is mostly plain to rolling terrain. The Project area is located
between 170 11/ 39// - 170 36/ 27.13// N latitude and 780 14/ 15// - 780 41/ 21// E longitude.
General Climatic Conditions
Seismic Zone
The facing elements used at the site were segmental blocks having a mass of approximately 35 kg as
shown in fig 1.
These blocks are of length 450mm on the front side and 280mm on the back side.
The height of each block was 300mm.
These blocks were manufactured by cold pressing process in automatic block making machine ensuring
consistent quality, accuracy of dimensions and good finish with cement concrete of 35MPa after 28 days
curing.
The blocks were cured for a sufficient length of time as approved by the engineer using potable water.
Sufficient care was taken to ensure that blocks are not damaged during handling, storage and
transportation.
Units were acceptable for placement in the structure if the strength at 7 days or before exceeds 75% of the
28 days requirement.
The drainage materials were cleaned crushed stone or gravel with particle size in the range of 9.5-
19.1mm and % fines <5% or a suitable material.
Drainage pipe
The drainage collection pipes were perforated or slotted PVC or HDPE of 150mm diameter.
The site was excavated to the lines, width and grades as shown in the approved construction drawings
The trench for the leveling pad was excavated to the correct depth and width.
In the reinforced soil zone the ground was excavated to a depth of 200mm (minimum) below the first layer
of geogrid reinforcement.
Any unsuitable soils if present were removed and replaced by compacted fill, Similarly pits, depressions
etc. were filled by compacted fill of approved quality.
The centerline for the leveling pad was marked on the bottom of the trench ensuring required setback to
accommodate the facing batter as shown on the construction drawings and the side forms are fixed for the
leveling pad.
The leveling pad consists of a plain cement concrete strip footing of 600 mm width and 200 mm thickness.
Concrete used for leveling pad was with a minimum grade of M 15 and the maximum size of aggregates
was limited to 20 mm.
Concrete was poured and compacted using needle vibrators, and screed to the correct level and finished
using wooden floats to flat and smooth finish.
The leveling pad was casted with a level tolerance of a 5mm and the surface finished using a smooth wood
float.
The leveling pad was cured for a minimum period of 48 hours before erection of segmental units is
commenced.
The first course of segmental block was placed to the correct line as marked on the leveling pad.
A thin layer of stiff cement mortar was provided on top of leveling pad, to ensure accurate placing of leveling
blocks.
The next extremely important step was to place the first course of blocks to the correct line and level.
Drainage aggregates were then placed and lightly compacted to fill openings between segmental units.
Soil fill was placed and compacted behind the segmental units and drainage material is in filled up to the
height of the block.
After ensuring the drainage infill between the blocks or slightly above the top of the segmental unit, the
debris was cleaned off from the top of the segmental units.
Position geogrid of the required type and length as shown on drawings (fig) with the longitudinal direction
perpendicular to wall face.
Adjacent roll of geogrid was placed such that they are butting each other.
Next course of segmental unit was placed in a running bond configuration.
Segmental unit was moved forward to engage shear key and ensuring proper alignment and set back of
the segmental units.
Geogrid was pulled tight using uniform tension, hold or stake to maintain tension throughout the fill
placement process.
Drainage infill and soil fill was placed on the openings between segmental units and then the fill and
drainage in-fill is compacted.
PCC
Raft
Height of wall Width(m) Length(m) Thickness(m) Quantity(cum) Cost(Rs) Total cost(Rs)
4 6.250 20 0.150 18.750 2600.000 48750.000
5 7.813 20 0.150 23.438 2600.000 60937.500
6 9.375 20 0.150 28.125 2600.000 73125.000
7 10.938 20 0.150 32.813 2600.000 85312.500
8 12.500 20 0.150 37.500 2600.000 97500.000
Wall
Height of wall(m) Length(m) Average thickness(m) Quantity(Rs) Cost(Rs) Total cost(Rs)
4 20 0.475 38.000 3900.000 148200.000
5 20 0.594 59.375 3900.000 231562.500
6 20 0.713 85.500 3900.000 333450.000
7 20 0.831 116.375 3900.000 453862.500
8 20 0.950 152.000 3900.000 592800.000
Steel
Height of wall(m) Steel required(ton) Cost/ton(Rs) TOTAL COST(Rs)
4 9.150 41500 379725.000
5 11.438 41500 474656.250
6 13.725 41500 569587.500
7 16.013 41500 664518.750
8 18.300 41500 759450.000
4 20 80 11.11 888.800
5 20 100 11.11 1111.000
Cost of segmental block cost is Rs150. including drainage material. Erection of RE wall includes
cost of geogrid, geotextile, aggregate labour and equipment cost
The reinforced fill selected is a granular fill with the following properties.
Procedure
The deposition, spreading, leveling and compaction of the fill were carried out in a direction parallel to the
facing.
No plant or equipment with a weight exceeding 1500 kg was allowed to operate within 1.5m from the facing.
Construction equipment was allowed to move directly over the geogrid, ensuring that there is a minimum
soil cover of 100 mm over the strips.
Abrupt stopping, turning etc. of the equipment was avoided to minimize misalignment of geogrids.
Care was taken during the deposition, spreading, leveling and compaction of the fill to avoid damage,
disturbance or misalignment of segmental blocks, geotextile filter and geogrid reinforcement.
Fill placed near the facing was ensured, that no voids exist directly below the geogrid reinforcement.
Fill was placed and compacted in lifts. Thickness of lift was consistent.
Within 300 mm of the facing, the fill/drainage material was compacted by a light-weight plate compactor or
by hand tamping.
Beyond 300 mm and within 1.5 m from the facing the fill was compacted using a walk behind vibratory roller
or plate compactor with a total weight less than 1500 kg.
Beyond a distance of 1.5 m from the facing, the fill was compacted using appropriate rollers of 8-10 MT
weight.
Movement of compaction equipment was in a direction parallel to the wall face, starting near the face and
gradually moving away from the wall face.
PCC cost per cum Rs.2600/- (Cost includes cost of M15concrete. labour and shuttering)
Raft cost per cum Rs.2150/- Wall cost per cum Rs.3900/-
Steel binding cost per metric ton Rs.3500/- (Cost of labour, cutting and binding)
1. Materials used for construction of reinforced earthen walls were geogrids, geotextile, drainage aggregate,
drainage pipe, and segmental blocks. For the construction of reinforced earthen walls there is no need of
deep foundations (pcc, reinforcement, raft,).It involves the process like casting of foundation leveling pad,
erection of facing units, placement and compaction of soil fill to the first layer of reinforcement, placement
of the first layer of geogrid reinforcements, placement of next and subsequent lifts of soil fill, erection of
subsequent rows of facing units and reinforcements, coping.
2. The cost for the construction of reinforced earthen walls is nearly 20%of the cost of retaining wall. The time
required for construction of reinforced earthen walls was found more when compared to the construction of
retaining walls. We can construct a retaining wall of height 1.2m in a day, and the entire process like
(deshutteing, reinforcement binding, shuttering for additional height) takes 3-4 days, where as for the
reinforced earthen wall, the construction is done in layers, and each layer of 200mm was filled and
compacted up to 98% MDD, so on an average it takes a week days for 0.6 m height. So we can conclude
that, the retaining wall can be preferred if the height of the wall is less than 4m, and if the height is more
than 4m reinforced earthen walls can be preferred due to their stability, and also due to its capacity to
reduce the future settlement of pavement by controlling the erosion of soil fill with the help of geotextile
placed between the soil fill and drainage aggregate.
3. The workers/ labor required for the construction of retaining wall was found more when compared to
reinforced earthern wall, 7-9 workers are required for the construction of retaining wall, where as for the
construction of reinforced earthen wall, the blocks are casted by the machine and only 2 or 3 workers are
required for the placing and finishing of blocks
Referances
R.D. Nalawade and D.R. Nalawade (2008): "Stability and Cost Aspects of Geogrid Reinforced Earth Wall
of Flyover"
Seiichi Onodera et al (2001): "Long-term durability of geogrids laid in Reinforced soil wall"
Xiao-jing Feng et al (2008): "The Influence of Facing Stiffness on the Performance of Geogrid Reinforced
Retaining Walls"
Peter Janopaul et al (1991): "Retaining Wall Construction And Block There for"
Ennio M. Palmeira et al (2008): "Advances in Geo synthetics Materials and Applications for Soil
Reinforcement and Environmental Protection Works"
Dwight A Beranak P.E. (2002): "Use of Geogrids In Pavement Construction"
Ragui F. Wilson-Fahmy et al (1994): "Experimental Behavior of Polymeric Geogrids in Pullout"
Han Yong Jeon et al (2002): "Assessment of long-term performances of polyester geogrids by
accelerated creep test"
J. Engrg. Mech. (2004): "Analyzing Dynamic Behavior of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls"
"Design and Construction of reinforced earthen wall"- GEOSOL ASSOCIATES.